From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/7698 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH] inline llsc atomics when compiling for sh4a Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 00:52:52 -0400 Message-ID: <20150519045252.GF17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20150517185516.GA32020@duality.lan> <20150518023402.GS17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150518225617.GA1905@duality.lan> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1432011191 13639 80.91.229.3 (19 May 2015 04:53:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 04:53:11 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-7710-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue May 19 06:53:10 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YuZWf-0007TI-W7 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 06:53:10 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 11431 invoked by uid 550); 19 May 2015 04:53:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 11403 invoked from network); 19 May 2015 04:53:06 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150518225617.GA1905@duality.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:7698 Archived-At: On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 05:56:18PM -0500, Bobby Bingham wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:34:02PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 01:55:16PM -0500, Bobby Bingham wrote: > > > If we're building for sh4a, the compiler is already free to use > > > instructions only available on sh4a, so we can do the same and inline the > > > llsc atomics. If we're building for an older processor, we still do the > > > same runtime atomics selection as before. > > > > Thanks! I think it's ok for commit as-is, but based on re-reading this > > code I have some ideas for improving it that are orthogonal to this > > change. See comments inline: > > Would you prefer I resend this patch to remove the LLSC_* macros at the > same time, or another patch to remove them separately? I've committed the original patch. Rich